Recently California liberals who wanted to buy guns due to fear from the lawlessness the pandemic was about to create. went into a gun store to buy a gun and take it home. When they were confronted with the myriad hoops through which they had to jump, (forms, background check, finger printing, etc.) plus a 10-day waiting period to take possession, they became irate and blamed the hassle on the gun store owner.
His response: “None of the owners or employees in this store voted for the people who enacted these laws.” The obvious implication: liberals, who had supported the people responsible for creating those procedures, were now being victimized by their own impolitic voting habits.
Australia instigated a gun ban approximately three years ago. They had enjoyed a pretty steady decline in gun-related crime year for nearly two decades. But those in charge decided that just wasn’t good enough and instigated a gun ban for all law-abiding citizens. It may not have been written that way, but anyone with minimal intelligence and understanding of human nature knows that those were the only people who would comply. The criminal element, previously demonstrators of their disdain for law and order, considered themselves exempt from such rules and kept their guns. The result – a hefty increase in gun related robberies, burglaries, etc.; yet, as the new crime statistics came to light, the people in charge were dumbfounded how this could possibly have happened.
In our continent, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued a ban on “military type” rifles, specifically AR-15s. Trudeau shamelessly and cynically tried to use the tragic murders in Nova Scotia as the impetus for this gun ban; this was not approved by Parliament, but done by Trudeau and his cabinet. Bottom line, the citizens of Canada had no voice in this decision through their elected representatives.
This edict was liberal hot air for two reasons. First, the AR-15 uses a .22 caliber round, not reliable in a true “military” battle scenario. Second, a miniscule number of mass shootings have been committed with such a weapon. This is merely a convenient foot-in-the-door measure toward total gun control and confiscation.
Thls “creep” approach has worked to peoples’ disadvantage and demise for centuries. Take people’s freedoms an inch at a time – they won’t like it, but it won’t be worth objecting. Once they have acclimated to that loss, take another inch; again they won’t like, but it’s not enough for them to push back. This continues and soon they have lost a full 12 inches of their freedoms – at which point it’s too late to regain them.
My point: think about where you are headed, or more precisely, where you are being led. We have elected officials, chosen by you, who make decisions on your behalf that may or may not be in your best interest. Cities like Chicago, Boston, New York, and many others are headed by Democrats and have very stringent gun restriction laws. Yet these cities also have the highest gun-related crime rates in the nation.
Maine, which does not even require a license or permit to carry a gun, was recently cited as the safest state in the Union. Why? It’s very simple; when a crook is focused on robbing someone, he first wants to know that his intended victim can’t fight back, i.e., have a gun of his own. Weakness does not beget kindness from crooks, it only invites aggression.
When you cast your votes in November, one of your questions should be: “Where does this candidate stand on a law abiding person’s right to carry a gun for the purpose of defending himself?” As in California, someday that person who needs to protect himself could be you.
